@Digitalmessiah wrote:
@filthy_vegansthat's a really long-winded way to say you're just bored of multiplayer dude. Gives credence to what people say about the Battlefield community, which is that we don't even know what we want.
It is nothing of the sort, dude.
Your appeal to the nebulous mass ("what people want") is weaksauce. Communities are always diverse, with diverse wants and needs.
I know what I want, which is for Battlefield 2042 to support a wide range of styles of playing the <!> objective. The things that annoy me about 2042 are the things that annoy me about the players (and by extension the community): camping, not playing the <!> objective and whining about stuff that doesn't really matter much if you actually like to play the game rather than compare how long your PP-29s are.
I agree that the way they call these core elements "legacy features" is a bit of an insults.
Looking at the discussions here, I think everyone has a fair point however, Dice is fully responsible for causing this mess. Its like when your favorite Metal band suddenly writes really bad pop songs. Sure, evolving is part of everything. Im all for it. heck i even like the specialists abilities now because they do add (If somewhat unbalanced atm) fun new tactics that I enjoy (not really their look and sound tho). But you can't come out with another BF game, offer half of the contend an 8 year old predecessor had, remove everything that made BF well BF really and not expect some backlash. To top insult with injury, now calling those legacy features. Its laughable and really shows how detached they actually are.
Im curious if word of mouth actually will hurt sales. I really want 2042 to succeed but expected a lot better and my expectations weren't really over the top.
The rock band metaphor is quite good
@Buzzfunk wrote:
@filthy_vegansYeah i remember. However, aside from bugs, and i dont think we are not forgiving in that regard - all of those titles had the core elements intact. Whether that was a scoreboard, server browser, squad selection etc, it wasn't really about hey this isn't BF. Buggy yes but 2042 is an entirely different animal, IMO.
I've already made my position on the scoreboard clear, so I shan't repeat it.
The server browser is a glaring omission only inasmuch as in AOW I'd like to have a clear rotation so I don't play the same maps repeatedly (especially the weaker ones such as Kaleidoscope), and can avoid them by choosing the right map in the rotation to give me a good few games before switching server. DICE even used to make playlists and gamemode weekends on BFV, although it always felt kind of half-hearted. community games were a cool feature, although their reliance, like Portal, on having at least one active player on the server is very limiting.
For AOW, squad selection isn't the issue. Squad size and VOIP categorically is. Smaller squads are less persistent as it's a lot easier to wipe them and much harder for an organised squad to take on the rush of players that spawn to defend a flag under attack. a 5-man squad would make much more sense, in my view, than the current 4-man allowance. The lack of in-game VOIP doesn't affect me much, but if I were to put my sweatpants on alone on a weekend (which basically doesn't happen), I'd want to be able to berate talk to my squadmates.
I'm not sure 2042 is an entirely different animal. I've seen evolution in how people play the maps since the 19th, and expect the metagame to evolve as we all learn how to play it. I also expect DICE/Criterion/whoever to learn how to make engaging 128 player maps for the game modes. Doubling the player count is not necessarily best served by just doubling the map area and available vehicles.
I'm still not sure I think the "this isn't Battlefield" line is valid though. It is Battlefield. It's just a bit different. It certainly feels like a Battlefield to me.
